Friday, May 3, 2013

Susan Faludi notes the passing of Shulamith Firestone

When
Shulamith Firestone’s body was found late last August, in her studio
apartment on the fifth floor of a tenement walkup on East Tenth Street,
she had been dead for some days. She was sixty-seven, and she had
battled schizophrenia for decades, surviving on public assistance. There
was no food in the apartment, and one theory is that Firestone starved,
though no autopsy was conducted, by preference of her Orthodox Jewish
family. Such a solitary demise would have been unimaginable to anyone
who knew Firestone in the late nineteen-sixties, when she was at the
epicenter of the radical-feminist movement, surrounded by some of the
same women who, a month after her death, gathered in St. Mark’s Church
In-the-Bowery, to pay their respects.

The memorial
service verged on radical-feminist revival. Women distributed flyers on
consciousness-raising, and displayed copies of texts published by the
Redstockings, a New York group that Firestone co-founded. The WBAI radio
host Fran Luck called for the Tenth Street studio to be named the
Shulamith Firestone Memorial Apartment, and rented “in perpetuity” to
“an older and meaningful feminist.” Kathie Sarachild, who had pioneered
consciousness-raising and coined the slogan “Sisterhood Is Powerful,” in
1968, proposed convening a Shulamith Firestone Women’s Liberation
Memorial Conference on What Is to Be Done. After several calls from the
dais to “seize the moment” and “keep it going,” a dozen women decamped
to an organizing meeting at Sarachild’s apartment.

This is really a great essay. Faludi goes really deep into that wave of the movement.

And how quickly it results in anger and frustration.

What it did for me was two things: Provide understanding and appreciation.

Not of that time period, of the last few years.

C.I. is amazing, I love her tremendously. She spawned the community that produced newsletters led by women (Polly's Brew and the gina & krista round-robin; also Maria is a third of El Spirito) and it also produced the following blogs by women:

But you may remember there were other blogs in the community. And there was the idiot of Seth in the City (who I always called out). You may remember that this non-community member sort of pushed himself off on us. And he did something else.

He ended evening posts at The Common Ills.

He wrote this brutal e-mail to C.I., attacking her, accusing her of wanting "all the attention" because she wrote an evening entry during the week. (I think on abortion, it was some late breaking thing.)

As I have said here many times, my response would have been the middle finger.

C.I.'s response was, 'Fine. I won't do anything in the evening other than 'And the war drags on . . .'.'

Reading about that wave of feminism in Faludi's essay, that suddenly made sense.

There were all sorts of ugly attacks on people accusing them of doing something to steal attention away from the others.

I can't imagine living through that kind of nonsense and jealousy.

But that's why C.I. responded that way to the idiot and non-community member Seth.

Now for the appreciation.

That wave of feminism just fell apart. It was so tight for about two years (1969 and 1970).

So it's really amazing how we've managed not to do the same. Many of the community sites are 8 years old now (or will be this year). And they've managed to stick together.

I started my site as a response to the 2008 attacks on Hillary Clinton (who I supported for president in the Democratic Party primaries).

Before I started it, I would read the sites. And as a reader, I was surprised by how much respect there was in this community.

Daily Kos/Krud and a hundred other sites split up as they rushed to embrace one candidate. In 2007, you had Trina supporting Dennis Kucinich, someone supporting Bill Richardson, Elaine supporting Mike Gravel, Betty supporting Hillary, etc.

And not only did I not see the group fall apart because of that, I also remember reading a piece Jim wrote at Third about how C.I. called everyone on the phone one-by-one and said, 'Betty's going to support Hillary. I know some people don't care for Hillary. I hope we can all respect Betty's right to support the candidate she believes in and not make her feel uncomfortable or wrong.'

As a reader (and one who was already supporting Hillary) that meant a lot to me.

Not just because of the fact that sites were already beginning to demonize Hillary and Hillary supporters.

But also because it was such a C.I. thing to do, to worry that someone else might be hurt and to step in and say that's not what we're about, we support each other.

And I think that tone is probably from that period as well, seeing all these comrades turn to enemies or estranged at the least.

Faludi's got a great article for any number of reasons but for me that's why I enjoyed it so much.

Friday, May 3, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, the protests
continue, Nouri continues to order the use of the 'magic' wands in
Baghdad, calls emerge for Nouri to leave office, worshipers at a mosque
face a bombing, and more.

Replace Nouri? In today's New York Times, Nussaibah Younis makes the case for that with "Why Maliki must go" -- which we'll get to in a minute. In yesterday's snapshot, we noted former US Ambassador Ryan Crocker had a column (Washington Post) which is mistaken beyond means. I argued:While the key moments of betrayal did not happen on his watch (it was
under the dithering idiot Chris Hill), you cannot act, in 2013, as if
talk will bring back the progress of 2010. We'll address that at length
tomorrow. As with the issue of US forces in Iraq, it's one of those
topics we have to keep going back to because so few will ever bother to
cover it. The shortest version is when you make a deal in 2010 and one
party (Nouri) fails to honor it, you can't show three years later and
say, "Well let's just talk and try to progress." No, we don't reset the
clock. If there is to be progress in 2013, the first step is honoring
the contract that was signed in 2010.

He proposes everyone just talk and:

Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." The report was written by Kenneth Katzman. We're noting the section on the 2010 elections and The Erbil Agreement:Part of the difficulty forming a government after the election was
the close result, and the dramatic implications of gaining or retaining
power in Iraq, where politics is often seen as a "winner take all"
proposition. In accordance with timelines established in the
Constitution, the newly elected COR [Council of Representatives,
Parliament] convened on June 15, 2020, but the session ended after less
than a half hour without electing a COR leadership team. The various
factions made little progress through August 2010, as Maliki insisted he
remain prime minister for another term and remained in a caretaker
role. The United States stepped up its involvement in political talks,
but it was Iraqi politics that led the factions out of an impasse. On
October 1, 2010, Maliki received the backing of most of the 40 COR
Sadrist deputies. The United States reportedly was concerned that
Maliki might form a government with Sadrist support. The Administration
ultimately backed a second Maliki term, although continuing to demand
that Maliki form a broad-based government inclusive of Sunni leaders.
Illustrating the degree to which the Kurds reclaimed their former role
of "kingmakers," Maliki, Allawi, and other Iraqi leaders met in the
capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government-administered region in
Irbil on November 8, 2010, to continue to negotiate on a new
government. (Sadr did not attend the meeting in Irbil, but ISCI/Iraq
National Alliance slate leader Ammar Al Hakim did.) On November 10, 2010, with reported direct intervention by President
Obama, the "Irbil Agreement" was reached in which (1) Allawi agreed to
support Maliki and Talabani to remain in their offices for another term;
(2) Iraqiyya would be extensively represented in government -- one of
its figures would become COR Speaker, another would be defense minister,
and another (presumably Allawi himself) would chair an oversight body
called the "National Council for Strategic Policies," and (3) amending
the de-Baathification laws that had barred some Iraqis, such as Saleh
al-Mutlaq, from holding political positions. Observers praised the
agreement because it included all major factions and was signed with KRG
President Masoud Barzani and then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey
in attendance. The agreement did not specify concessions to the Sadr
faction.

We've address The Erbil Agreement over and over. Like US troops still
in Iraq, it's one of those topics that results in drive-by readers
e-mailing to insist (a) it never happened and (b) the US was in no way
involved in it.

The Erbil Agreement ended the 8 month political stalemate that followed
the 2010 elections. It's the legal contract, brokered by the US, that
allowed those not supporting Nouri to throw in their support in exchange
for legally defined within the contract terms. The KRG, for example,
was supposed to get the census and referendum in Kirkuk (promised in
Article 140 of the Constitution but that Nouri refused to move on in his
first term). Another promise was that an independent national security
council would be created and Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi would head it.
(Iraqiya won the 2010 elections; Nouri's State of Law came in second.
He refused to honor the election results and step down which created the
political stalemate that lasted 8 months.)

Let's point out that this move by Nouri was not a surprise. In the
lead-up to the 2010 elections, US Gen Ray Odierno was warning this could
happen but the White House elected not to listen to him. They backed
the idiot Chris Hill who was then US Ambassador to Iraq. Hill didn't
even want Odierno speaking to the media and the White House went along
with that as well. Odierno warned what could happen. The idiot and
unqualified Hill (and we noted he was an unqualified and an idiot when
we reported on his confirmation hearing -- see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th snapshot)
and the White House that courted and coddled him are responsible for
what went down in 2010. And you can read more about that and how it
took Odierno going to then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates after
the 2010 parliamentary election and Gates bringing then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton in on their conversation for Odierno to get the
audience with the administration that he should have received
automatically by reading Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor's The Endgame.

Barack was an idiot to have shut General Ray Odierno, the top-US
commander in Iraq, out of the conversation. To his credit, when
approached by Gates and Clinton (and faced with ongoing political
stalemate and Chris Hill's inability to answer basic questions about
it), Barack did act quickly to replace the idiot. Which is how you had
James Jeffrey quickly nominated to be the new US Ambassador to Iraq with
a confirmation hearing taking place July 20, 2010.
That said, in our reporting on Hill's confirmation, we noted he was
unqualified, we noted he had no understanding of the issues. The 15 or
so months he was allowed to be ambassador to Iraq were a disaster whose
repercussions are still felt today.

Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq immediately before Chris
Hill. He was nominated by Bully Boy Bush and, after Barack was elected
in 2008, Crocker offered to stay on until a replacement could be found.

As Betty noted last night, Iraq got coverage (finally) on The NewsHour (PBS -- all links to the program that follow are text, audio and video). Betty covered the segment on the violence.
The other segment was Ray Suarez moderating a discussion about the
state of Iraq featuring Ryan Crocker and former Iraqi Deputy Ambassadot
to the UN (2004 to 2007) Feisal Istrabadi.

Istrabadi starts out noting the basic problem ("Nouri al-Maliki himself
has been asserting greater and greater control over the
instrumentalities of the state, and I -- and has been unable or
unwilling to enter or execute the compromises") to which Crocker quickly
agrees ("I think Feisal is right, Ray."). Crocker mentions the
slaughter in Hawija (last week, a peaceful sit-in was attacked by
Nouri's forces leaving 50 dead and 110 injured) but feels this is a
"signal for Iraqis of all sects and ethnicities to take a very deep
breath" -- no, that's not how it works in a functioning society. A
despot does not launch a massacre and the response is, "Let's take a
deep breath." While you're taking that deep breath, you're likely to be
stormed the same way the sit-in in Hawija was.

As Betty did on Wednesday,
Feisal Istrabadi noted some contents of the US diplomatic tookbox that
the US could be using to influence events. Crocker wants US Secretary
of State John Kerry and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to act as
mediators. But for what purpose?

I agree they should be mediating. But Crocker's column in the Post offers this notion that things can be healed with talking.

No. The Erbil Agreement was a legally binding contract (that the White
House swore had its full support and backing). Nouri used it to become
prime minister and then tossed it aside refusing to honor it. Since
2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been calling for Nouri
to implement The Erbil Agreement and he has refused.

You can't trust someone like that. Forget for the moment that The Erbil
Agreement is like every other promise Nouri makes (including the "100
Days To End Corruption" promise to the Iraqi people of February 2011) in
that he gets attention and praise for a proposal but never follows up
on it.

The Erbil Agreement ended up a political stalemate. It was a legal
contract. Nouri used just enough of it to get what he wanted (a second
term as prime minister) and then trashed it. And has refused to
implement even when called on to do so.

How do you trust someone who refuses to honor a contract?

You can not hit the re-set button and start all over on this. It doesn't work that way.

It is not as if 2010, the political leaders in Iraq said, "Nouri, grab
the post of prime minister -- that you didn't win -- and we'll work out
what we want in exchange and get back to you."

Everything was drawn up in the contract. Everything was stated
clearly. Everything was agreed to. And Nouri started implementing the
contract and kept it moving long enough to get his second term and then
refused to follow it and implement the other provisions.

Nouri owns a home and you give him $125,000 for it and he signs it over
to you but he refuses to move out of it. You keep calling, "Hey, Nouri
when are you going to vacate the premises? You know there's a date for
that in the contract but you've exceeded it." You wait for over two
years for him to turn over the house you paid for. He refuses. You're
looking for a new house and find the perfect one. You love it but turns
out Nouri owns this one too. Are you really going to trust him again?

Only if you're crazy.

There's not a re-set button after he refused to honor the contract. Not
only did he refuse to honor it, but the contract outlined a
power-sharing government and Nouri has spent the last months insulting
such a government, saying it is not functional and insisting that he
will have a majority government. (Him having a majority government is
difficult when he came in second place.)

So there's no reason to trust him. He doesn't honor a contract, he doesn't support a power-sharing government.

Noting the possibility that Iraq could split up into three independent governing bodies under some loose system of federalism, Jim Muir (BBC News) reminds:

The government led by Nouri Maliki was supposed to be one of national partnership. Under a power-sharing deal brokered by Kurdish leader Masoud
Barzani, the man whose Iraqiyya coalition actually came out ahead of Mr
Maliki in the polls, Iyyad Allawi (a secular Shia who garnered most of
the Sunni vote), was supposed to head a "Higher National Strategy
Council" with considerable powers. None of that happened. Instead of being seen as a partner, Mr
Maliki has been accused increasingly of going it alone with autocratic
powers stemming from his control of the entire security apparatus,
including the defence and interior ministries. Sunni participation has been increasingly marginalised and
opinion alienated by Mr Maliki's failure to address key Sunni demands
and complaints, especially relating to the release of detainees,
counter-terrorism laws, job opportunities etc.

You'd have to be the stupidest person in the world to say, "Okay, let's
all start over." There is no starting over. His record is firmly
established so that at this point, if you go into an agreement with him,
you better know that when he (again) breaks it, no one wants to hear
you whine.

[Bernard Gwertzman:] Why can't Maliki make peace with the Sunni political leadership so that things can calm down?

[Ned Parker:] Well, that's the issue: Today, you can make the
argument that you have troops now surrounding two cities, Fallujah and
Ramadi, which were a hotbed for the insurgency against the Americans and
later a base for al-Qaeda. So there is a tense standoff there, and I
suppose you can attribute or credit to local leaders; they have worked
out an initial understanding with the Iraqi military to try to ease the
situation where there are some people inside of Ramadi who killed five
Iraqi soldiers last Saturday. But the problem is, whether on the local
level or on the national level, there is no real consensus or trust
between the sides to bring the situation under control. So politics
exist in the vacuum of mistrust, and if harsh decisions are made, very
quickly you go from calm into a crisis. And each crisis is worse than
the last. So tentative channels can be established for communications,
but without bold action, inevitably things will boil over.

After The Erbil Agreement gave Nouri everything he wanted and he refused
to honor his side of the contract, it's not at all surprising that
there is no trust.

But if Mr. Maliki, who took office in 2006, had a successful first term,
he has squandered the opportunity to heal the nation in his second
term, which began in 2010. He has taken a hard sectarian line on
security and political challenges. He has resisted integrating Sunnis
into the army. He has accused senior Sunni politicians of being
terrorists, hounded them from power and lost the cooperation of the
Sunni community. The result: the political bargain that had sustained
the fragile Iraqi state broke down.

Today, resurgent terrorist groups have killed hundreds of moderate
Sunnis who once fought them, and are offering others a grim chance to
save their lives — by “repenting” and joining the extremists.

Meanwhile, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, remains in exile, having fled and then been given a death sentence in absentia on charges of terrorism. Similar moves to charge Finance Minister Rafe al-Essawi,
a moderate Sunni, led to the protests that have now engulfed Iraq’s
Sunni heartland and alienated other communities. An army attack on a
protest encampment last week brought only wider violence.

The last sentence refers to Hawija. Tuesday, April 23rd,
Nouri al-Maliki's federal forces stormed a sit-in in Hawija, Kirkuk. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) announced 50
activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. Last night, Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported,
"Iraqi security used disproportionate force, including shooting unarmed
civilians, during a raid on an encampment of Sunni Arab protesters last
week that left 45 people dead, according to two government
investigations and foreign diplomats." Parker quotes an unnamed
"foreign official" who states, "It became a vendetta out of all
proportions.… This was carnage." And this is on Nouri. Parker quotes
'acting minister of defense' stating the people were "terrorists."
There is no acting minister of defense.

The Constitution of Iraq does not recognize "acting" minister. You're a
minister or you're not. How do you head a ministry? The Prime Minister
(or prime minister-designate) nominates you to the Parliament and you
win enough votes for confirmation from the Parliament. Once that
happens, you're in unless you want to go because the Prime Minister
can't fire you, only the Parliament can and that's by a vote. (Nouri's
repeatedly asked the Parliment to strip Tareq al-Hashemi of the title of
Vice President. The Parliament's refused to do so.)

Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." Again, let's pull from Kenneth Katzman's latest report to the US Congress, "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights"
(Congressional Research Service) on what happened after The Erbil
Agreement, "As for the State of Law list, Maliki remained prime
minister, and retained for himself the Defense, Interior, and National
Security (minister of state) posts pending permanent nominees for those
positions." To be clear, Parliament has not rejected any nominee.
Nouri has never nominated people for these posts in his second term.
Struan Stevenson heads the European Parliament's Delegation for
Relations with Iraq and notes in a column for UPI today: "In a subsequent agreement signed in the presence of the U.S. ambassador
to Iraq (The Erbil Agreement), Maliki agreed to appoint representatives
from Allawi's faction into key government posts as ministers of defense,
interior and security. In fact he has never done so and his office
maintains full authority over the army, police and intelligence
services, giving him virtual dictatorial powers."

Yes, it all comes back to that. The Erbil Agreement was not a minor
document. There is no 'acting' minister of defense. Why would Nouri
have 'acting'? Because he has no respect for the Constitution or for
legal contracts. But also because it's a power-grab (as Iraqiya rightly
labeled it back in January of 2011).

Nouri puts you in as "acting" Minister of Defense. You do what he tells
you. If you fail to or if you disagree or if decides you're not loyal,
he kicks you out. And there's nothing you can do because you don't
have a position that's defined in the Constitution. By contrast, if he
nominates you to be the Minister of Defense and the Parliament votes you
into office, you then control your ministry unless Parliament votes to
remove you.

So the flunky who pretends to be in charge of the Minister of Defense
does what Nouri tells him too. Which means Nouri is responsible for the
slaughter in Hawija.

Equally true, the 'acting' moron who declared the people taking part in
the sit-in to be all 'terrorists'? He was using the same terminology
that Nouri had used the week prior.

Kitabat reports
that tribal leaders in Dhi Qar have signed a letter apologizing to
activists. For what? For Nouri's "abusive verbal attack" on them.
Nouri gave a little speech where he called the peaceful activists
lawless rebels and threatened to use force against them. Peaceful
protests have been going on across Iraq, peaceful protests against
Nouri, since December.
They aren't the only ones condemning Nouri for those remarks. NINA notes
that Osama al-Nujaifi's party has condemned the remarks and called for
Nouri to stop verbally attacking demonstrators and return to Baghdad to
oversea security issues. Osama al-Nujaifi is part of the Iraqiya
political slate but this was his Motahedoon Coalition issuing the
condemnation. Iraqiya also condemned the remarks. Maysoun al-Damlouji, Iraqiya spokesperson, is quoted by NINA stating,
"Describing our honorable people who peacefully demonstrate across Iraq
demanding their legitimate rights as conspirators is the ugliest words
you can use against the oppressed people." Iraqiya MP Ahmed al-Alwani added that Nouri's attacks on demonstrators "incite sectarian strife."
Even Nouri's new bride Saleh al-Mutlaq is calling out the remarks leading Kitabat to wonder
if the honeymoon is over for Nouri and Saleh or if this is just more
propaganda from Saleh in an attempt to boost the votes for the National
Dialogue Front?

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have gathered in the squares of six
Iraqi cities since the last week of December. During 120 days of public
protest against sectarian discrimination and persecution carried out by
Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's regime, the demonstrators, along with
their supporting scholars, dignitaries and tribal leaders, were keen on
keeping the protests peaceful. Despite the hardships faced by the
protesters, with the regime ignoring their demands, not one government
institution has been attacked and no officials have been harmed.
However, the Prime Minister, known for his fascist ideas and obsession
with domination, power and direct control over the security agencies,
especially the army, had different ideas.From the very beginning, Al-Maliki mocked the Popular Movement and
the crowd in the streets of Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Mosul and other
cities. He described the protesters as sectarian, Ba'athists and
terrorists, and threatened them. In Fallujah, Al-Maliki instructed his
forces to tackle the protestors, causing a number of deaths and
injuries.However, the clarity of purpose and awareness of what the Prime
Minister had sought to do drove the people of Fallujah to lick their
wounds and underline the peacefulness of the c. Even so, the harassment
of demonstrators by security forces and the army did not stop; in
Samarra, the prime minister's forces used violence and weapons against
protesters.However, what was witnessed in the “freedom” square in the city of
Hawija in the early hours of Tuesday, April 23 was something different.
Without warning, while most of the people of the city and the protesters
were still asleep, the army and security forces associated with the
prime minister's office stormed the square with armoured vehicles, heavy
machine guns and helicopters. Within moments, the protest camp was a
war zone. More than hundred protesters were wounded and dozens were
killed of people; some, claimed eyewitnesses, were executed in the
field. In the days after the sneak attack by Al-Maliki's forces tensions
remained high.

Nouri's got a lot of blood on his hands. Ammar Karim (AFP) reported this morning
that the 'magic' wands to 'detect' bombs (and
drugs and, no doubt, spirits from the other world) are still being used
in Iraq. He speaks with a police officer in Baghdad who admits that
everyone knows that they don't work but that the police are under orders
to use the wands.

At the start of November 2009, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported
on these 'bomb detectors' in use in Iraq: "The small hand-held wand,
with a
telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints
in Iraq. But the device works 'on the same principle as a Ouija board'
-- the power of suggestion -- said a retired United States Air Force
officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more
than an explosive divining rod." That's when the wands should have
ceased being used in Iraq. But that didn't happen. Dropping back to January 25, 2010:

Riyad Mohammed and Rod Norldand (New York Times) reported on Saturday that
the reaction in Iraq was outrage from officials and they quote MP Ammar
Tuma stating, "This company not only caused grave and massive losses of
funds, but it has caused grave and massive losses of the lives of
innocent Iraqi civilians, by the hundreds and thousands, from attacks
that we thought we were immune to because we have this device." Despite
the turn of events, the machines continue to be used in Iraq but 'now'
an investigation into them will take place orded by Nouri. As opposed to
months ago when they were first called into question. Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) adds that members of Parliament were calling for an end to use of the machines on Saturday. Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes the US military has long -- and publicly -- decried the use of the machines, "The US military
has been scathing, claiming the wands contained only a chip to detect
theft from stores. The claim was based on a study released in June by US
military scientists, using x-ray and laboratory analysis, which was
passed on to Iraqi officials."

And still the wands were used. April 23rd (see the April 24, 2013 snapshot),
the man who made and sold the wands, who was on trial for those wands,
was pronounced guilty on three counts of fraud. And still Nouri has
allowed -- no, insisted that the wands be used.

Yesterday, McCormick was sentenced to a maxium of 10 years. Jake Ryan (Sun) quoted
Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit
outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the
highest category. Your profits were obscene. You have neither insight,
shame or any sense of remorse."

Guess who else has neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse?

Nouri al-Maliki.

Robert Booth (Guardian) noted
yesterday that Saad al-Muttalibi ("adviser to Nouri al-Maliki) is insisting Nouri's
considering suing on behalf of the victims. We noted, "Actually, the families of
the victims should be suing Nouri for allowing those things to be used
for the last years, even after the wands were globally revealed to be a
joke."

After the wands have been ruled a fraud and the maker and seller of them
has been sentenced, Nouri's still making police officers use these
devices that do nothing?

This is grounds for removal from office. This is incompetence at the highest level.

It also means the Iraqi government just lost the ability to sue for
James McCormick or his company for any damages. By using them today,
this is no longer, "We were defrauded! We didn't know!" Now you're
into the "buyer beware" category. (The Parliament might have standing
and groups representing Iraqis who lost loved ones should have standing
but Nouri, the Council of Ministers -- which he heads -- and the
Ministry of Interior and the Ministry Defense -- ibid -- should have
just lost standing to sue.)

So, to be clear, not only has he wasted a fortune on 'magic' wands but
he's made Iraq unsafer. If you're the police or whatever force and
you're using the 'magic' wand to detect a bomb and it comes back
'negative,' I believe you then move on to the next car. You've done
your 'test.' You've stood beside or behind the car and jogged in place
(how, supposedly, the 'magic' wand is activated) and nothing happened so
you waive the car on.

Without the 'magic' wands, that time would be spent searching a car. A
search might or might not discover a bomb but it would have a better
chance of finding one. (As would bomb sniffing dogs.) Back in October,
Al Mada noted
that Parliament's Security and Defense Commission was budgeting for
explosive detectors and bomb sniffing dogs. It's a shame Nouri couldn't
have led on the issue.

October 9th,
with much fanfare, Nouri signed a $4.2 billion dollar weapons deal with
Russia. He strutted and preened and was so proud of himself. Yet
shortly after taking his bows on the world stage and with Parliament and
others raising objections, Nouri quickly announced the deal was off.
The scandal, however, refuses to go away. TheIraq Times stated
Nouri was offering up his former spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh and
others to protect the truly corrupt -- the truly corrupt -- according to
members of Parliament -- including Nouri's son who got a nice little
slice off the deal. These charges came from Shi'ite MPs as well as
Sunnis and Kurds. Even the Shi'ite National Alliance has spoken
out. All Iraq News noted
National Alliance member and one-time MP Wael Abdul Latif is calling
for Nouri to quickly bring charges against those involved in the
corruption. (The arms deal is now treated by the Iraqi press as corrupt
and not allegedly corrupt, FYI.) Latif remains a major player in the
National Alliance and the National Alliance has backed Nouri during his
second term. With his current hold on power reportedly tenous and
having already lost the support of Moqtada al-Sadr, Nouri really can't
afford to tick off the National Alliance as well. Kitabat reported
MP Maha al-Douri, of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc in Parliament, is saying
Nouri's on a list of officials bribed by Russia for the deal.

So, see there, he's led Iraq to topping the corruption index. And, as we noted yesterday, Iraq just topped Committee to Protect Journalists' 2013 Impunity Index -- kill any journalist in Nouri's Iraq and never fear that you might be arrested.

He's also 'led' on increasing violence in Iraq. Yesterday, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported
the United Nations have released their figures for the month of April:
712 people killed in violence and 1,633 left injured. Basing it on
their own figures, the UN declares last month to have been the most
deadly in Iraq in five years. Vivienne Nunis (Voice of Russia) notes the UN figures and speaks with AFP's Mohamad Ali Harissi who states:

To be honest, you have to be lucky to stay alive here. People, the
Iraqis, they open their door and just before they go out to work they
pray so they come back safe because you can be in the street and
suddenly there will be a car bomb next to you and you will be killed.People here they live by chance you know. The one who stays alive is
lucky. It's really a mess and it's really sad because people die every
day. And for what, for nothing you know?

We're wrapping up. But Elaine pointed out Wednesday night that Policy Mic,
writing about the protests in Iraq, was unable (like so many others) to
note that one thing fueling them has been the rape and torture of
females in Iraqi prisons. This has happened with so many outlets. So
it's worth noting that Struan Stevenson was able to note it in his column for UPI: "Arbitrary arrests, constant executions and torture of prisoners --
particularly the torture and rape of female detainees, have increased to
such an extent that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and even
the European Parliament have formally objected." We'll close with this from ETAN:

May 3,
2013 - The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and West Papua
Advocacy Team (WPAT) strongly urge the U.S. government to condemn the
unwarranted assault by Indonesian government security forces on peaceful May 1
demonstrations in West Papua. They called for U.S. security assistance to be
curtailed, absent an end to such egregious human rights violations and credible
prosecution and sentencing of the perpetrators of these crimes among Indonesia's
military, police, and "anti-terror" forces. Widespread nonviolent Papuan protests commemorating the 50th anniversary
of the United Nations 1963 handover of West Papua to Indonesian control were met
with security force brutality. At least two West Papuans were killed; many more
were wounded and/or detained.

On May 2, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay
“expressed serious concerns over the crackdown on mass demonstrations across
Papua." Her statement said "These latest incidents are unfortunate examples of
the ongoing suppression of freedom of expression and excessive use of force in
Papua. I urge the Government of Indonesia to allow peaceful protest and hold
accountable those involved in abuses.

ETAN and WPAT, noting the close
relations and expanding security relationship between Washington and Jakarta,
call on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to press the
Indonesian government to end its suppression of freedom of expression in West
Papua and to hold those responsible for violence against civilian demonstrators
accountable before civilian courts.

The U.S. should also urge Indonesia
to allow visits by UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs, as the Indonesian
Government agreed to do in late 2012, and more generally end restrictions on
travel there by international observers. The planned
visit by Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, remains stalled over
Indonesian government restrictions that would prevent him from visiting
political prisoners in West Papua and elsewhere.

ETAN and WPAT also urge
the appropriate committees and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress to hold
hearings examining the impact of expanding security ties between the U.S. and
Indonesia and possible violations of the Leahy law. This is especially urgent
given the continuing and even worsening violations of human rights by the
Indonesian military and other security forces targeting Papuans seeking to
exercise rights guaranteed them by international treaties and covenants.
Legislation to curtail or fully suspend this assistance should be on the agenda
for such hearings.

The latest attacks are the latest human rights
violations that have continued unabated since Indonesia took control of the
territory 50 years. These crimes are part of a larger pattern of repression and
impunity perpetrated by troops and police armed and trained by the U.S.

This statement is also supported by the West Papua Action
Network.

ETAN was formed in 1991. The U.S.-based organization advocates
for democracy, justice and human rights for Timor-Leste, West Papua and
Indonesia. ETAN on the web: http://www.etan.org. Twitter: etan009. The West Papua Advocacy
Team is a U.S.-based NGO composed of academics, human rights defenders and a
retired U.S. diplomat. Both organizations co-publish the monthly West Papua
Report. http://etan.org/issues/wpapua/default.htm

Wheгe, if yοu have any hеalth conditіons.5 liters οf the beverаge! At least 2 hours ρrior to tаking any diet ρill or ѕupplement regularly as pаrt of ԁaіly intake of green tеa tablеt fгom numeгous health ѕtores.There's a new method out on the market.

Just want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness for your put up is simply nice and that i can think you are an expert in this subject.Fine with your permission let me to grasp your feed to stay updated with coming near near post.Thanks 1,000,000 and please carry on the gratifying work.